VARGAS: The president said after the summit we cannot have another year of debate on this issue. We need decisions now. You said on Friday, "We are determined to pass health care." Do you have the 217 votes necessary to pass it in the House?

PELOSI: Well right now we're working on the -- on the policy. The -- the president put a -- a -- I think a good proposal on the Internet on Sunday. We're examining that very carefully to make sure it has all the affordability we need for the middle class. All the accountability for the insurance industry. And the accessibility that we need to have.

I -- from the meeting on Thursday -- the summit meeting, I -- I believe that we're ready for the next step, which is to write legislative language, and then go from there.

VARGAS: So what are the fixes the Senate needs to make in your opinion? Through reconciliation presumably before the House can vote on it...

PELOSI: Well whatever...

(CROSSTALK)

PELOSI: Well I -- I believe listening to the president yesterday -- he's still hopeful that there's a way to have a bipartisan bill. But whatever route the Senate takes, we would like to see again more affordability for the middle class. This is very, very important. This is a bill about the middle class -- their access to health care, and the affordability that makes that access possible.

Secondly we want to close the donut hole for seniors. This is really an important mistake that was made when the republicans passed the prescription drug bill. And we want the seniors to have the comfort of knowing that in this bill the donut hole will be patched. And it's a technical -- a slang term for something that means the seniors pay more...

VARGAS: But if you get that...Will you--

PELOSI: The seniors pay more. And we have more. We want to eliminate the Nebraska fix that -- have equity for all of the states. And that in terms of some of the investments. There are more. But those are the three -- three of the main ones.

But one of the biggest differences is the -- how the bill would be paid for. We -- will we cut waste, fraud, and abuse. Over half a trillion dollars in the bill. But we still needed more of a pay for. The Senate bill had a tax that we did not like in the House. And I think the president's proposal addresses that concern.

So now we will -- it's a question of when you go down to legislative language, you -- you need the clarity. And that's when you find out what everything means.

VARGAS: But you know that the polls show that the American people are deeply divided on health care. Many of them are opposed to it. Even though they are supporting certain...

PELOSI: Pieces of it.

VARGAS: Specific pieces of it. What do you say to your members, when it does come to the House to vote on this, who are in real fear of losing
their seats in November if they support you now?

PELOSI: Well first of all our members -- every one of them -- wants health care. I think everybody wants affordable health care for all Americans. They know that this will take courage. It took courage to pass Social Security. It took courage to pass Medicare. And many of the same forces that were at work decades ago are at work again against this bill.

But the American people need it, why are we here? We're not here just to self perpetuate our service in Congress. We're here to do the job for the American people. To get them results that gives them not only health security, but economic security, because the health issue is an economic issue for -- for America's families.

VARGAS: Do you wish though that the president had posted his bill before this week? That six months ago it might have been more helpful for you. That maybe six months ago you knew that the public option was something he was going to drop before you fought so hard for it?

PELOSI: Well we -- we still fight for the -- what the public option will do. Whether it's in the bill or not, its purpose must be recognized. And that is to keep the insurance companies honest. To keep them accountable, and to increase competition. And I think in the summit on Thursday it became very clear that what the president was proposing was regulation of the insurance companies.

Left to their own devices they have done harm to the American people. They need to be regulated. And that is one of the biggest differences between the Democrats and the Republicans. Another one for example is -- an example of it is ending the denial of -- of coverage to those who have a preexisting condition. The Democrats have that in their bill. The Republicans do not.

VARGAS: But would you...

PELOSI: But that's a major insurance reform that has to take place.

VARGAS: But would we still be debating this if the president had put his plan out six months ago?

PELOSI: Well, I don't know what -- what the value of trying -- the president has tried since one year ago March 5th. We met in Washington D.C. in a bipartisan way with some of the outside stakeholders to talk about working together to have health care accessible for all Americans. I smile because I remember Senator Kennedy coming into the room and saying, "I'm signing up as a foot soldier in the fight for health care reform." And of course he was such a tremendous leader.

But that was a year ago. Since then we've had hundreds of hours of meetings, and hearings, and mark ups of bills -- well over a hundred Republican amendments are in this bill -- the -- the House and Senate bills. And what the president put forth – we'll see some of what was said yesterday. So those who were making constructive contributions can be accommodated.

Whether we get Republican votes or not -- the bill definitely has bipartisan provisions in it. But if they have a good idea that works for the American people, whether they're in the vote for the bill or not, we want it in the bill.

VARGAS: How long are willing to wait for those ideas?

PELOSI: Well we -- but that that happened yesterday. And so ...

VARGAS: I mean -- I made it clear -- the president -- The president made it clear that time is up.

PELOSI: Time is up. Yes. So we really have to go forth, because as I said there -- as we sit around this table, this big table in Blair House -- every night families sit around their kitchen table -- try to figure out their finances.

Their -- the security of their jobs, the cost of their children's education, how they're going to pay their medical bills. What is the status of their pensions? And they can't wait any longer. If, you know, if your family has a – a preexisting condition, or if you ever been denied coverage, or if you have a -- a rescission. If your insurance has been withdrawn just as you're about to need a procedure, you know it's long overdue.

And what's the point of talking about it any longer?

VARGAS: If -- but the point is when it does finally come to vote on it in the House, you're certain that you can muster the 217 votes that you need...

PELOSI: We...

VARGAS: ... even with the differences over abortion language? Things...

PELOSI: Yes.

VARGAS:... that there are members of the House who voted in favor of it before, who are now saying, "We can't vote for this bill, because of the Senate language on abortion?

PELOSI: Well let me say I have this in three -- just so you know how we sequence this. First we zero in on what the policy will be. And that is what we'll be doing -- following the president's summit yesterday.

Secondly, we'll see what the Senate can do. What is the substance? And what is the Senate prepared to do? And then we'll go to the third step as to what my -- my members will vote for. But we have a very diverse party. But we all agree that the present system is unsustainable. It's unsustainable.

It's unaffordable for families, for -- and individuals, for businesses -- large, small, and moderate sized businesses. It's unsustainable to our budget. We cannot afford the rising cost of -- of health care. As the president has said, "Health care reform is entitlement reform." And it's unsustainable for our economy. We want to be competitive. These health care costs are a competitiveness issue. They diminish the opportunities for our businesses domestically and internationally to compete without this anvil of health care costs around their necks.

VARGAS: You mentioned jobs. Members of the House have already weighed in on the Senate jobs bill saying it's too small and does too little. The Congressional Black Caucus said it shouldn't even be called a jobs bill. Should you agree to the smaller, incremental approach given that unemployment is the single biggest issue in this country right now?

PELOSI: Well, we wanted to move as quickly as possible on jobs. We passed our bill in December, as you probably know. What the Senate is taking is a segmented approach to it. And I think when everyone sees what the different pieces are, they will know that we're on the path --

VARGAS: But you've said that's OK. Is it OK to do it in that smaller, incremental way, and not the big, dramatic way that the House proposed?

PELOSI: Well, it would have been faster if they would just agree to our bill last year because people are hurting, they need jobs and we need to move quickly. This won't take a long time to do, but every piece of it will not have every provision in it that we want but it will all create jobs and help small businesses grow because that's where major job creation is. It addresses concerns that we have about our veterans coming home who have -- are facing unemployment. It is the biggest issue for our seniors. And believe it or not, jobs in the economy are the biggest issue for our seniors and their opportunities as well. So it is -- it's a four letter word that we use around here all the time, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs.

And by the way, the health care bill is a jobs bill. It will create four million new jobs, several hundred thousand immediately upon enactment. And it will also encourage an entrepreneurial spirit in our country where people can take risks and be entrepreneurial because they know they have health care.

VARGAS: The Ethics Committee on Charles Rangel said that he has violated the House gift rule.

PELOSI: Uh-huh.

VARGAS: How can he remain in such a powerful position as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee?

PELOSI: Well, I think --

VARGAS: Given the fact that there are further pending ethics investigations and this public admonishment has taken place.

PELOSI: Well, it is a public admonishment. It said he did not knowingly violate House rules. So that gives him some comfort. But the fact is that we have a --

VARGAS: He should have known though, don't you think?

PELOSI: Well, I don't know. You understand that the Ethics Committee is an independent, bipartisan committee in the House. They act independent of us. And that's exactly the way it should be. I, though, when I became speaker, instituted an outside ethics panel which makes recommendations in so that we have a double way to receive information, although the ethics committee can self initiate, as well as take recommendations from the outside panel. So we're going to look forward to seeing what else they have to say about what they have before him regarding Chairman Rangel.

VARGAS: If there are further admonishments, though, should he remain in this position?

PELOSI: Well, let's why don't we just give him a chance to hear what the independent, bipartisan -- they work very hard to reach their conclusions and we obviously there's more to come here.

VARGAS: And – but you don't -- you understand this is why so many Americans think Congress is corrupt. It just doesn't -- it doesn't look good. It doesn't pass the smell test.

PELOSI: No, it doesn't. No, it doesn't. I served for seven years on the Ethics Committee and the last thing I would have wanted would be for the Speaker of the House to interfere in a political way in what was going on there. That just should never happen. But the fact is, is that what Mr. Rangel has been admonished for is not good. It was a violation of the rules of the House. It was not a -- something that jeopardized our country in any way.

So it remains to be seen what the rest of the work of the committee is. And I hope it will be soon. But again, it's independent and they go with their own -- they go at their own pace.

VARGAS: Let's talk a bit about the coming elections in November. You had recently-- and the Tea Party movement, do you think it will be a force to be reckoned with? You had said last summer that it was a faux grassroots movement. You called it the Astroturf movement.

PELOSI: In some respects it is. Uh-huh.

VARGAS: Is the Tea Party movement a force?

PELOSI: No – No what I said at the time is, that they were -- the Republican Party directs a lot of what the Tea Party does, but not everybody in the Tea Party takes direction from the Republican Party. And so there was a lot of, shall we say, Astroturf, as opposed to grassroots.

But, you know, we share some of the views of the Tea Partiers in terms of the role of special interest in Washington, D.C., as -- it just has to stop. And that's why I've fought the special interest, whether it's on energy, whether it's on health insurance, whether it's on pharmaceuticals and the rest.

VARGAS: So, common ground with many people in the Tea Party movement.

PELOSI: Well, no, there are some. There are some because they, again, some of it is orchestrated from the Republican headquarters. Some of it is hijacking the good intentions of lots of people who share some of our concerns that we have about the role of special interests and many Tea Partiers, not that I speak for them, share the view, whether it's -- and Democrats, Republicans and Independents share the view that the recent Supreme Court decision, which greatly empowers the special interests, is something that they oppose.

VARGAS: Finally, President Obama, when asked to rate his year in office, gave himself a B plus. How would you rate yourself in the past year?

PELOSI: Well, I have a -- I think I get an A for effort. And in the House of Representatives, my mark is the mark of our members. We have passed every piece of legislation that is part of the Obama agenda. Whether it's the creation of jobs, expanding access to health care, creating new green jobs for the future, regulatory reform, we have passed the full agenda.

VARGAS: Are you frustrated so many bills have not have been stalled in the Senate? Almost 300 bills passed by the House that are sitting languishing in the Senate?

PELOSI: And most of those bills have bipartisan support. Strong bipartisan support in the House that have gone over there. But that you know what that's about? That's about -- and it's very important for you to know, that's about the Republican delay tactics. By requiring 60 votes on some simple legislation that Harry Reid always gets -- has the votes for, but he doesn't have the time to go through the procedural day after day where you have to wait days for the time to go by in order to get the 60 votes. That's how it works in the Senate.

So it's about time. Everything's about time. The most finite commodity that we have. We used our time very well in the House to get an agenda passed in time for it to be considered by the Senate. The delaying tactics of the Republicans in the Senate…

VARGAS: Dare I ask you to grade the Senate?

PELOSI: Well, let's grade this all on a curve. What really matters is, what we do and how it relates to the lives of the American people back to that kitchen table where they have to think about how they make ends meet and how they make the future better for their children and provide for their own retirement. That's really where the grade goes. And the grade is given on election day. We -- we're fully prepared to face the American people with the integrity of what we have put forth, the commitment to jobs and health care and education and a world at peace and safe for our children and with the political armed power to go with it to win those elections.

VARGAS: Madam Speaker, thank you for joining us.

PELOSI: My pleasure.

END

VARGAS: And we are joined now by the Republican point man at the
health care summit, Senator Lamar Alexander.

Senator, welcome to "This Week."

ALEXANDER: Thank you, Elizabeth.

VARGAS: You just said heard Speaker Pelosi and President Obama say
time is up, we're not scrapping the plan, we're not starting from
scratch, this is it. Are you going to -- are the Republicans going to
offer some amendments (inaudible)

ALEXANDER: We -- we already have. I mean, we spent seven hours on
Thursday, which I thought was a great opportunity for us to say why we
thought the president's bill is not a good bill and what we think we
ought to do, which is to establish a goal of reducing costs and go step
by step toward that goal. And we offered a number of good ideas, some
of which the president agreed with, and he'll put his bill aside and
renounce jamming the bill through. We can go to work on this the way we
normally do in the United States Senate, which is in a bipartisan way.

VARGAS: But he has said he's not going to scrap the bill, he's
moving forward with or without you. So why not be part of the process?
Why not take what you consider to be an imperfect bill and at least
attach some proposals that you support?

ALEXANDER: Well, this is a...

(CROSSTALK)

ALEXANDER: This is a car that can't be recalled and fixed. There
are too many things wrong with it. It cuts Medicare a half-trillion
dollars. It raises taxes a half-trillion dollars. And in the Medicare
cuts, the point that didn't get made very much on Thursday, it doesn't
cut it to help Medicare. It cuts Medicare to spend on a new program at
a time when Medicare is going broke in 2015.

It raises insurance premiums. The president and I had a little
exchange on that. It shifts big costs to states, which are going to
drive up college tuitions and state taxes. As a former governor, I've
heard from Democratic and Republican governors on this. It dumps 15
million low-income Americans into a failed government program called
Medicaid. Fifty percent of doctors won't even see patients in Medicaid.

So you can't fix that unless they take all those things out. And if
they did, they wouldn't have a bill.

VARGAS: You had said in your opening remarks at the health care
summit, you quoted Senator Byrd when you said -- you called on the
president to renounce using reconciliation to push the bill through the
Senate with a simple majority vote, saying, quote, "It would be an
outrage to run the health care bill through the Senate like a freight
train with this process."

Why -- why are you so opposed to this, given the fact that
Republicans have used reconciliation more often than Democrats in the past?

ALEXANDER: You're correct. The reconciliation procedure is a --
where you use legislative (ph) procedure is a (ph) -- where you use --
legislative procedure 19 times it's been used. It's for the purpose of
taxing and spending and -- and reducing deficits.

But the difference here is that there's never been anything of this
size and magnitude and complexity run through the Senate in this way.
There are a lot of technical problems with it, which we could discuss.
It would turn the Senate -- it would really be the end of the United
States Senate as a protector of minority rights, as a place where you
have to get consensus, instead of just a partisan majority, and it would
be a political kamikaze mission for the Democratic Party if they jam
this through after the American people have been saying, look, we're
trying to tell you in every way we know how, in elections, in surveys,
in town hall meetings, we don't want this bill.

VARGAS: Why political kamikaze, though? We know that Americans
don't support health care in general, but when you start drilling down
into the specifics, a lot of people do support some of those specifics.

ALEXANDER: Oh, they do support some of the specifics, but you put
it all together, they don't like it. They don't want their Medicare
cut. They don't want their taxes increased. They don't want their
premiums increased. I mean, millions of American will have their
premiums increased. The governors are up in arms about the new cost on
states, so people have decided -- and -- and there's a sense that
Washington is taking over too much.

So I was thinking this morning of President George W. Bush, when he
tried so hard to have private accounts for Social Security. He thought
he was right. He pushed, he pushed, and he pushed. If he'd stopped
about halfway through and shifted, he could have probably gotten a
bipartisan agreement on Social Security. I think President Obama could
learn from that.

He has a lot of us who would like to help him write a health care
bill, but not this one.

VARGAS: When you say political kamikaze, are you saying that if the
Democrats push this through, they will lose all their seats in
November? I mean, what are we talking about here?

ALEXANDER: Well, here's what I think. I mean, the people are
saying, "We don't want it," and the Democrats are saying, "We don't
care. We're going to pass it anyway." And so for the next three
months, Washington will be consumed with the Democrats trying to jam
this through in a very messy procedure an unpopular health care bill.

And then for the rest of the year, we're going to be involved in a
campaign to repeal it. And every Democratic candidate in the country is
going to be defined by this unpopular health care bill at a time when
the real issues are jobs, terror and debt.

VARGAS: You also said in your remarks at the summit that
Republicans have come to the conclusion that Congress, quote, "doesn't
do comprehensive well," that our country is too big and too complicated
for Washington. But Congress has passed many historic and sweeping and
comprehensive bills in the past, Medicare, the civil rights bill, the
Americans with Disabilities Act. Are you saying that this Congress is
uniquely incapable of doing something sweeping and massive and dramatic?

ALEXANDER: Well, the answer's yes, in that sense.

VARGAS: That's not good.

ALEXANDER: But no -- but let me go back. You mentioned the civil
rights bill. I was a very young aide here when President Johnson, who
had more Democratic votes in Congress than President Obama had, had the
civil rights bill written in Everett Dirksen's office. He was the
Republican leader.

He did that not just to pass it. He did it to make sure that, when
it was passed, it would be accepted by the people and there wouldn't be
a campaign as there will be in health care to repeal it from the day
it's passed.

Today I've watched the comprehensive immigration bill, I've watched
the comprehensive economy-wide cap and trade, I've watched the
comprehensive health care bill, they fall of their own weight, because
we're biting off more than we can chew in a country this big and complex
and complicated.

I think we do better as a country when we go step by step toward a
goal, and the goal in this case should be reducing health care costs.

VARGAS: So the country has changed or Congress has changed?

ALEXANDER: Well, I think the size of the effort (ph) has changed.
I mean, a 2,700-page bill is going to be unpopular because you're hiding
something in it. It's full of surprises. It's -- it's -- policy
skeptics believe in the law of unintended consequences. And when you
write a bill in the middle of the night in a partisan way and, you know,
pass it on Christmas Eve and it's that long, it'll have surprises like
the cornhusker kickback, which was probably the death blow to the health
care bill.

VARGAS: Your colleague, Senator Evan Bayh, recently announced his
resignation, basically throwing his hands up in disgust, saying Congress
is broken, and I want to be -- I don't want to be part of it any more.
He cited you as one of the few Republican senators that he felt that he
could find common ground with, work with, agree with. How are we going
to fix Congress and empower Congress to be able to pass the sweeping
kinds of changes that we need in this country when people like Evan Bayh
just take their -- go home, in essence, give up and go home?

ALEXANDER: Well, you know, former governors -- and I'm one --
always have a hard time with the Senate. You know, we're -- we're used
-- governors are used to saying, "Let's go this way," and a legislator
in a reactor to things. So that's part of the problem.

The second is, a lot more is going on than one would think. I mean,
Senator Carper, a Democrat, and I introduced a clean air bill with 11
Democrats and Republicans. We hope we can pass it this year. Senator
Webb, a Democrat, and I worked on -- have introduced a nuclear power
bill. Senator Graham, Kerry, and Lieberman are working on a climate
change bill.

So if you take specific steps toward goals, we're more likely to
succeed. And my observation is that -- in a country our complex -- we
can't do these big comprehensive...

(CROSSTALK)

VARGAS: But very, very quickly, when somebody like a Senator Scott
Brown, for example, breaks ranks with Republicans and votes against a
filibuster to get the jobs bill to the floor of the Senate, he gets on
his Facebook page, you know, all sorts of angry postings, calling him a
double-crosser, a sellout, a Judas. What does that say about the
political environment right now?

ALEXANDER: It says we live in a very volatile (ph) political
environment, and Scott Brown and I and others simply have to do what we
think is right. And if we do, which is to get results in a bipartisan
way, we'll probably be re-elected or at least we'll have done a good job.

VARGAS: Senator Lamar Alexander, thank you so much for joining us
here this morning on "This Week."

ALEXANDER: Thank you.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VARGAS: Good morning, and welcome to "This Week."

The health care summit. Did it make any difference?

OBAMA: I hope that this isn't political theater.

VARGAS: The parties came together...

CANTOR: We just can't afford this.

VARGAS: ... but they couldn't bridge the gap. So what's next
for health care reform? Questions for our headliners.

PELOSI: This will take courage to do, but we will get it done.

VARGAS: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and...

ALEXANDER: Mr. President, renounce this idea of jamming through
your version of the bill.

ANNOUNCER: From the heart of the nation's capital, "This Week"
with "20/20" anchor Elizabeth Vargas, live from the Newseum on
Pennsylvania Avenue.

VARGAS: Good morning, everyone. With so many issues facing
Congress, from health care reform to unemployment, and new questions
about how Congress does business, I sat down with the speaker of the
House, Nancy Pelosi.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

VARGAS: Madam Speaker, welcome back again to "This Week." Let's
talk health care.
PELOSI: Good to be here.

VARGAS: The president said after the summit, we cannot have
another year of debate on this issue. We need decisions now. You
said on Friday, "We are determined to pass health care." Do you have
the 217 votes necessary to pass it in the House?

PELOSI: Well, right now we're working on the -- on the policy.
The -- the president put a -- a -- I think a good proposal on the
Internet on Sunday. We're examining that very carefully to make sure
it has all the affordability we need for the middle class, all the
accountability for the insurance industry, and the accessibility that
we need to have.

I -- from the meeting on Thursday -- the summit meeting, I -- I
believe that we're ready for the next step, which is to write
legislative language, and then go from there.

VARGAS: So what are the fixes the Senate needs to make in your
opinion? Through reconciliation presumably before the House can vote
on it...

(CROSSTALK)

PELOSI: Well, I -- I believe, listening to the president
yesterday, he's still hopeful that there's a way to have a bipartisan
bill. But whatever route the Senate takes, we would like to see,
again, more affordability for the middle class. This is very, very
important. This is a bill about the middle class -- their access to
health care, and the affordability that makes that access possible.

Secondly, we want to close the donut hole for seniors. This is
really an important mistake that was made when the Republicans passed
the prescription drug bill. And we want the seniors to have the
comfort of knowing that in this bill the donut hole will be patched.
And it's a technical -- a slang term for something that means the
seniors pay more...

VARGAS: But if you get that, will you...

PELOSI: The seniors pay more, and we have more (ph). We want to
eliminate the Nebraska fix and have equity for all of the states. And
that, in terms of some of the investments, there are more, but those
are the three -- three of the main ones.

But one of the biggest differences is the -- how the bill would
be paid for. We -- we cut waste, fraud, and abuse, over half a
trillion dollars in the bill. But we still needed more of a pay-for.
The Senate bill had a tax that we did not like in the House. And I
think the president's proposal addresses that concern.

So now we will -- it's a question of when you go down to
legislative language, you -- you need the clarity, and that's when you
find out what everything means.

VARGAS: But you know that the polls show that the American
people are deeply divided on health care. Many of them are opposed to
it. Even though they are supporting certain -- specific pieces of it.

(CROSSTALK)

VARGAS: What do you say to your members, when it does come to
the House to vote on this, who are in real fear of losing their seats
in November if they support you now?

PELOSI: Well, first of all, our members -- every one of them --
wants health care. I think everybody wants affordable health care for
all Americans. They know that this will take courage. It took
courage to pass Social Security. It took courage to pass Medicare.
And many of the same forces that were at work decades ago are at work
again against this bill.

But the American people need it. Why are we here? We're not
here just to self-perpetuate our service in Congress. We're here to
do the job for the American people, to get them results that gives
them not only health security, but economic security, because the
health issue is an economic issue for -- for America's families.

VARGAS: Do you wish, though, that the president had posted his
bill before this week, that six months ago it might have been more
helpful for you, that maybe six months ago you knew that the public
option was something he was going to drop before you fought so hard
for it?

PELOSI: Well, we -- we still fight for the -- what the public
option will do. Whether it's in the bill or not, its purpose must be
recognized and that is to keep the insurance companies honest, to keep
them accountable, and to increase competition. And I think in the
summit on Thursday it became very clear that what the president was
proposing was regulation of the insurance companies.

Left to their own devices, they have done harm to the American
people. They need to be regulated. And that is one of the biggest
differences between the Democrats and the Republicans.

Another one, for example, is -- an example of it is ending the
denial of -- of coverage to those who have a pre-existing condition.
The Democrats have that in their bill; the Republicans do not.

VARGAS: But would you...

PELOSI: But that's a major insurance reform that has to take
place.

VARGAS: But would we still be debating this if the president had
put his plan out six months ago?

PELOSI: Well, I don't know what -- what the value of trying --
the president has tried since one year ago, March 5th. We met in
Washington D.C. in a bipartisan way with some of the outside
stakeholders to talk about working together to have health care
accessible for all Americans. I smile because I remember Senator
Kennedy coming into the room and saying, "I'm signing up as a foot
soldier in the fight for health care reform." And, of course, he was
such a tremendous leader.

But that was a year ago. Since then, we've had hundreds of hours
of meetings, and hearings, and markups of bills -- well over a hundred
Republican amendments are in this bill -- the -- the House and Senate
bills, and what the president put forth. We'll see some of what was
said yesterday. So those who were making constructive contributions
can be accommodated.

Whether we get Republican votes or not, the bill definitely has
bipartisan provisions in it. But if they have a good idea that works
for the American people, whether they're going to vote for the bill or
not, we want it in the bill.

VARGAS: How long are willing to wait for those ideas?

PELOSI: Well, we -- but that that happened yesterday. And so...

VARGAS: I mean...

(CROSSTALK)

VARGAS: ... the president seemed to made it clear that time's
up.

PELOSI: Time's up, yes. So we really have to go forth, because
as I said there, was we sit around this table, this big table in Blair
House -- every night families sit around their kitchen table, try to
figure out their finances, their -- the security of their jobs, the
cost of their children's education, how they're going to pay their
medical bills, what is the status of their pensions?

And they can't wait any longer. If -- you know, if your family
has a pre-existing condition or if you are denied coverage or if you
have a -- a rescission, if your insurance has been withdrawn just as
you're about to need a procedure, you know that it's long overdue.
And what's the point of talking about it any longer?

VARGAS: But the point is, when it does finally come to vote on
it in the House, you're certain that you can muster the 217 votes that
you need, even with the differences over abortion language, things --
that there are members of the House who voted in favor of it before,
who are now saying, "We can't vote for this bill, because of the
Senate language on abortion"?

PELOSI: Well, let me say I have this in three -- just so you
know, how we sequence this. First, we zero in on what the policy will
be, and that is what we'll be doing following the president's summit
yesterday.

Secondly, we'll see what the Senate can do. What is the
substance? What is the Senate prepared to do? And then we'll go to
the third step as to what my -- my members will vote for.

But we have a very diverse party, but we all agree that the
present system is unsustainable. It's unsustainable. It's
unaffordable for families, for -- and individuals, for businesses,
large-, small-, and moderate-sized businesses. It's unsustainable to
our budget. We cannot afford the rising cost of -- of health care.

As the president has said, "Health care reform is entitlement
reform." And it's unsustainable for our -- our economy. We want to
be competitive. These health care costs are a competitiveness issue.
They diminish the opportunities for our businesses domestically and
internationally to compete without this anvil of health care costs
around their necks.

VARGAS: You mentioned jobs. Members of the House have already
weighed in on the Senate jobs bill saying it's too small and does too
little. The Congressional Black Caucus said it shouldn't even be
called a jobs bill. Should you agree to the smaller, incremental
approach, given that unemployment is the single biggest issue in this
country right now?
PELOSI: Well, we wanted to move as quickly as possible on jobs.
We passed our bill in December, as you probably know. What the Senate
is taking is a segmented approach to it, and I think when everyone
sees what the different pieces are, they will know that we're on the
path...

VARGAS: But you've said that's OK. Is it OK to do it in that
smaller, incremental way, and not the big, dramatic way that the House
proposed?

PELOSI: Well, it would have been faster if they would just agree
to our bill last year because people are hurting, they need jobs and
we need to move quicker.

This won't take a long time to do, but every piece of it will not
have every provision in it that we want but it will all create jobs
and help small businesses grow, because that's where major job
creation is. It addresses concerns that we have about our veterans
coming home who have -- are facing unemployment.

It is the biggest issue for our seniors. And believe it or not,
jobs and the economy are the biggest issue for our seniors and their
opportunities, as well. So it is -- it's a four-letter word that we
use around here all the time, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs.

And by the way, the health care bill is a jobs bill. It will
create four million new jobs, several hundred thousand immediately
upon enactment. And it will also encourage an entrepreneurial spirit
in our country where people can take risks and be entrepreneurial
because they know they have health care.

VARGAS: The Ethics Committee on Charles Rangel said that he has
violated the House gift rule. How can he remain in such a powerful
position as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee...

PELOSI: Well, I think...

VARGAS: ... given the fact that there are further pending ethics
investigations and this public admonishment has taken place?

PELOSI: Well, it is a public admonishment. It said he did not
knowingly violate House rules, so that gives him some comfort. But
the fact is that we have a...

VARGAS: He should have known, though, don't you think?

PELOSI: Well, I don't know. You understand that the Ethics
Committee is an independent, bipartisan committee in the House. They
act independent of us, and that's exactly the way it should be.

I, though, when I became speaker, instituted an outside ethics
panel which makes recommendations in so that we have a double way to
receive information, although the Ethics Committee can self-initiate,
as well as take recommendations from the outside panel. So we look
forward to seeing what else they have to say about what they have
before him regarding Chairman Rangel.
VARGAS: If there are further admonishments, though, should he
remain in this position?

PELOSI: Well, why don't we just give him a chance to hear what
the independent, bipartisan -- they work very hard to reach their
conclusions, and, obviously, there's more to come here.

VARGAS: But you don't -- you understand this is why so many
Americans think Congress is corrupt. It just doesn't -- it doesn't
look good. It doesn't pass the smell test.

PELOSI: No, it doesn't. No, it doesn't. And I served for seven
years on the Ethics Committee. The last thing I would have wanted
would be for the speaker of the House to interfere in a political way
in what was going on there. That just should never happen.

But the fact is, is that what Mr. Rangel has been admonished for
is not good. It was a violation of the rules of the House. It was
not something that jeopardized our country in any way.

So it remains to be seen what the rest of the work of the
committee is, and I hope it will be soon. But, again, it's
independent, and they go with their own -- they go at their own pace.

VARGAS: Let's talk a bit about the coming elections in November.
You had recently -- and the Tea Party movement. Do you think it will
be a force to be reckoned with? You had said last summer that it was
a faux grassroots movement; you called it the Astroturf movement.

PELOSI: In some respects.

VARGAS: Is the Tea Party movement a force?

PELOSI: No -- no, what I said at the time is, that they were --
the Republican Party directs a lot of what the Tea Party does, but not
everybody in the Tea Party takes direction from the Republican Party.
And so there was a lot of, shall we say, Astroturf, as opposed to
grassroots.

But, you know, we share some of the views of the Tea Partiers in
terms of the role of special interest in Washington, D.C., as -- it
just has to stop. And that's why I've fought the special interest,
whether it's on energy, whether it's on health insurance, whether it's
on pharmaceuticals and the rest.

VARGAS: So common ground with many people in the Tea Party
movement?

(CROSSTALK)

PELOSI: There are some because, they -- again, some of it is
orchestrated from the Republican headquarters. Some of it is
hijacking the good intentions of lots of people who share some of our
concerns that we have about -- about the role of special interests.

And many Tea Partiers, not that I speak for them, share the view,
whether it's -- and Democrats, Republicans and independents share the
view that the recent Supreme Court decision, which greatly empowers
the special interests, is something that they oppose.

VARGAS: Finally, President Obama, when asked to rate his year in
office, gave himself a B-plus. How would you rate yourself in the
past year?

PELOSI: Well, I have a -- I think I get an A for effort. And in
the House of Representatives, my mark is the mark of our members. We
have passed every piece of legislation that is part of the Obama
agenda, whether it's the creation of jobs, expanding access to health
care, creating new green jobs for the future, regulatory reform. We
have passed the full agenda.

VARGAS: Are you frustrated so many bills have not -- have been
stalled in the Senate, almost 300 bills passed by the House that are
sitting languishing in the Senate?

PELOSI: And most of those bills have bipartisan support, strong
bipartisan support in the House that have gone over there. But that
-- you know what that's about? That's about -- and it's very
important for you to know -- that's about the Republican delay
tactics.

By requiring 60 votes on some simple legislation that Harry Reid
always gets -- has the votes for, but he doesn't have the time to go
through the procedural day after day where you have to wait days for
the time to go by in order to get the 60 votes. That's how it works
in the Senate.

So it's about time. Everything's about time, the most finite
commodity that we have. We used our time very well in the House to
get an agenda passed in time for it to be considered by the Senate,
the delaying tactics of the Republicans in the Senate.

VARGAS: Dare I ask you to grade the Senate?

PELOSI: Well, let's grade this all on a curve. What really
matters is what we do and how it relates to the lives of the American
people back to that kitchen table where they have to think about how
they make ends meet and how they make the future better for their
children and provide for their own retirement. That's really where
the grade goes.

And the grade is given on Election Day. We're fully prepared to
face the American people with the integrity of what we have put forth,
the commitment to jobs and health care and education, and a world at
peace and safe for our children, and with the political armed power to
go with it to win those elections.

VARGAS: Madam Speaker, thank you for joining us.

PELOSI: My pleasure.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

VARGAS: And we are joined now by the Republican point man at the
health care summit, Senator Lamar Alexander.

Senator, welcome to "This Week."

ALEXANDER: Thank you, Elizabeth.

VARGAS: You just said heard Speaker Pelosi and President Obama
say time is up, we're not scrapping the plan, we're not starting from
scratch, this is it. Are you going to -- are the Republicans going to
offer some amendments and play ball?

ALEXANDER: We -- we already have. I mean, we spent seven hours
on Thursday, which I thought was a great opportunity for us to say why
we thought the president's bill is not a good bill and what we think
we ought to do, which is to establish a goal of reducing costs and go
step by step toward that goal. And we offered a number of good ideas,
some of which the president agreed with, and if he'll put his bill
aside and renounce jamming the bill through, we can go to work on this
the way we normally do in the United States Senate, which is in a
bipartisan way.

VARGAS: But he has said he's not going to scrap the bill, he's
moving forward with or without you. So why not be part of the
process? Why not take what you consider to be an imperfect bill and
at least attach some proposals that you support?

ALEXANDER: Well, this is a--

(CROSSTALK)

ALEXANDER: This is a car that can't be recalled and fixed.
There are too many things wrong with it. It cuts Medicare a half-
trillion dollars. It raises taxes a half-trillion dollars. And in
the Medicare cuts, the point that didn't get made very much on
Thursday, it doesn't cut it to help Medicare. It cuts Medicare to
spend on a new program at a time when Medicare is going broke in 2015.

It raises insurance premiums. The president and I had a little
exchange on that. It shifts big costs to states, which are going to
drive up college tuitions and state taxes. As a former governor, I've
heard from Democratic and Republican governors on this. It dumps 15
million low-income Americans into a failed government program called
Medicaid. Fifty percent of doctors won't even see patients in
Medicaid.

So you can't fix that unless they take all those things out. And
if they did, they wouldn't have a bill.

VARGAS: You had said in your opening remarks at the health care
summit, you quoted Senator Byrd when you said -- you called on the
president to renounce using reconciliation to push the bill through
the Senate with a simple majority vote, saying, quote, "It would be an
outrage to run the health care bill through the Senate like a freight
train with this process."

Why -- why are you so opposed to this, given the fact that
Republicans have used reconciliation more often than Democrats in the
past?

VARGAS: True, I said you were quoting Senator Byrd.
ALEXANDER: You're correct. The reconciliation procedure is a
little used legislative procedure. Nineteen times it's been used.
It's for the purpose of taxing and spending and -- and reducing
deficits.

But the difference here is that there's never been anything of
this size and magnitude and complexity run through the Senate in this
way. There are a lot of technical problems with it, which we could
discuss. It would turn the Senate -- it would really be the end of
the United States Senate as a protector of minority rights, as a place
where you have to get consensus, instead of just a partisan majority,
and it would be a political kamikaze mission for the Democratic Party
if they jam this through after the American people have been saying,
look, we're trying to tell you in every way we know how, in elections,
in surveys, in town hall meetings, we don't want this bill.

VARGAS: Why political kamikaze, though? We know that Americans
don't support health care in general, but when you start drilling down
into the specifics, a lot of people do support some of those
specifics.

ALEXANDER: Oh, they do support some of the specifics, but you
put it all together, they don't like it. They don't want their
Medicare cut. They don't want their taxes increased. They don't want
their premiums increased. I mean, millions of Americans will have
their premiums increased. The governors are up in arms about the new
cost on states, so people have decided -- and -- and there's a sense
that Washington is taking over too much.

So I was thinking this morning of President George W. Bush, when
he tried so hard to have private accounts for Social Security. He
thought he was right. He pushed, he pushed, and he pushed. If he'd
stopped about halfway through and shifted, he could have probably
gotten a bipartisan agreement on Social Security. I think President
Obama could learn from that.

He has a lot of us who would like to help him write a health care
bill, but not this one.

VARGAS: When you say political kamikaze, are you saying that if
the Democrats push this through, they will lose all their seats in
November? I mean, what are we talking about here?

ALEXANDER: Well, here's what I think. I mean, the people are
saying, "We don't want it," and the Democrats are saying, "We don't
care. We're going to pass it anyway." And so for the next three
months, Washington will be consumed with the Democrats trying to jam
this through in a very messy procedure an unpopular health care bill.

And then for the rest of the year, we're going to be involved in
a campaign to repeal it. And every Democratic candidate in the
country is going to be defined by this unpopular health care bill at a
time when the real issues are jobs, terror and debt.

VARGAS: You also said in your remarks at the summit that
Republicans have come to the conclusion that Congress, quote, "doesn't
do comprehensive well," that our country is too big and too
complicated for Washington. But Congress has passed many historic and
sweeping and comprehensive bills in the past -- Medicare, the civil
rights bill, the Americans With Disabilities Act. Are you saying that
this Congress is uniquely incapable of doing something sweeping and
massive and dramatic?

ALEXANDER: Well, the answer's yes, in that sense.

VARGAS: That's not good.
ALEXANDER: But no -- but let me go back. You mentioned the
civil rights bill. I was a very young aide here when President
Johnson, who had more Democratic votes in Congress than President
Obama had, had the civil rights bill written in Everett Dirksen's
office. He was the Republican leader.

He did that not just to pass it. He did it to make sure that,
when it was passed, it would be accepted by the people and there
wouldn't be a campaign, as there will be in health care, to repeal it
from the day it's passed.

Today I've watched the comprehensive immigration bill, I've
watched the comprehensive economy-wide cap-and-trade, I've watched the
comprehensive health care bill. They fall of their own weight because
we're biting off more than we can chew in a country this big and
complex and complicated.

I think we do better as a country when we go step by step toward
a goal, and the goal in this case should be reducing health care
costs.

VARGAS: So the country has changed or Congress has changed?

ALEXANDER: Well, I think the size of the effort (ph) has
changed. I mean, a 2,700-page bill is going to be unpopular because
you're hiding something in it. It's full of surprises. It's -- it's
-- policy skeptics believe in the law of unintended consequences. And
when you write a bill in the middle of the night in a partisan way
and, you know, pass it on Christmas Eve and it's that long, it'll have
surprises like the Cornhusker kickback, which was probably the death
blow to the health care bill.

VARGAS: Your colleague, Senator Evan Bayh, recently announced
his resignation, basically throwing his hands up in disgust, saying
Congress is broken, and I want to be -- I don't want to be part of it
anymore. He cited you as one of the few Republican senators that he
felt that he could find common ground with, work with, agree with.
How are we going to fix Congress and empower Congress to be able to
pass the sweeping kinds of changes that we need in this country when
people like Evan Bayh just take their -- go home, in essence, give up
and go home?

ALEXANDER: Well, you know, former governors -- and I'm one --
always have a hard time with the Senate. You know, we're -- we're
used -- governors are used to saying, "Let's go this way," and a
legislator is a reactor to things. So that's part of the problem.

The second is, a lot more is going on than one would think. I
mean, Senator Carper, a Democrat, and I introduced a clean air bill
with 11 Democrats and Republicans. We hope we can pass it this year.
Senator Webb, a Democrat, and I worked on -- have introduced a nuclear
power bill. Senator Graham, Kerry, and Lieberman are working on a
climate change bill.

So if you take specific steps toward goals, we're more likely to
succeed. And my observation is that in a country our complex -- we
can't do these big comprehensive--

VARGAS: But very, very quickly, when somebody like a Senator
Scott Brown, for example, breaks ranks with Republicans and votes
against a filibuster to get the jobs bill to the floor of the Senate,
he gets on his Facebook page, you know, all sorts of angry postings,
calling him a double-crosser, a sellout, a Judas. What does that say
about the political environment right now?

ALEXANDER: It says we live in a very volatile (ph) political
environment, and Scott Brown and I and others simply have to do what
we think is right. And if we do, which is to get results in a
bipartisan way, we'll probably be re-elected, or at least we'll have
done a good job.

VARGAS: Senator Lamar Alexander, thank you so much for joining
us here this morning on "This Week."

ALEXANDER: Thank you.

VARGAS: Coming up next, the roundtable with George Will, Cokie
Roberts, Sam Donaldson, and Paul Krugman. And of course, later, the
Sunday funnies.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MEYERS: The U.S. State Department this week unveiled plans for
the new U.S. embassy in London, which will be made of glass and
include many advanced security measures, I guess to compensate for the
fact that it's made of glass.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: I'm going to start off by saying, "Here are some things
we agree on."

(UNKNOWN): I think we can all agree on that.

OBAMA: We agree more than we disagree.

(UNKNOWN): I think we all agree on that.

OBAMA: All parties in both chambers should be able to agree.

(UNKNOWN): I agree with that.

OBAMA: We agree that there have to be some. We agree...

(UNKNOWN): We all agree.

OBAMA: We basically agree.

(UNKNOWN): We certainly agree with the premise you stated.

OBAMA: We agree philosophically.

(UNKNOWN): You're right. We agree with that.

OBAMA: You agree that we should have some insurance regulation.

(UNKNOWN): The main point is, we basically agree.

KIMMEL: And I'm happy to announce that no agreement was reached.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VARGAS: But we are agreeing to go to our roundtable now, with
George Will, Sam Donaldson, Paul Krugman, and Cokie Roberts. Good to
have all of you here this morning. And let's...

ROBERTS: And we're all going to agree.

VARGAS: And we're all going to agree, exactly.
DONALDSON: Not a chance.

VARGAS: Exactly. Thanks to you, Sam.

George, what did you think of the summit? Did it mean anything?

WILL: Well, let's put it in context. The country having said we
want to concentrate on the economy and jobs, not health care, the
president doubles down on health care. And days after he unveils a
commission that will propose remedies for our Ponzi entitlement
structure, he pushes ahead with a trillion-dollar new entitlement.

The country having said it's too expensive, he melds the House
and Senate bills and comes up with a bill that's $70 billion more
expensive than the original Senate bill.

The country having said let's do it piecemeal, he says -- and he
may have a point here -- he says, look, this is such a complex system
that you can't do piecemeal. It's a Calder mobile. If you touch
something here, something jiggles way over here.

So, at the end of the day, it turns out we have two parties for a
reason, and they have differing views about, A, the purposes and, B,
the competence of government. And so we slog ahead.

DONALDSON: Well, he comes up with a bill that the Congressional
Budget Office says over 20 years will save billions of dollars. You
can argue it if you want, but that's what they say.

The thing that the summit demonstrated -- if there was any doubt
in anyone's mind -- is the Republicans are not going to play on
anything. It's not a question of, "Let's meet in the middle," or
even, "You're the majority party, so you're going to get most of it,
but give us something." They're not going to play.

So what the Democrats have to do now is pass the bill, put back
the public option, since it's their bill, and pass it. And President
Obama...

ROBERTS: But you can't pass it with the public option.

DONALDSON: Well, oh, wait a moment. If 51 votes in the Senate,
they can.

ROBERTS: They can't get it.

(CROSSTALK)

KRUGMAN: Unclear even then. But...

(CROSSTALK)

DONALDSON: Let me just finish here, because I want to say the
final thing. The president has to drop his George B. McClellan mask
and become Ulysses Grant. Be ruthless. That's what a Franklin
Roosevelt would have done. That's what Harry Truman would have done.
VARGAS: And, Sam, that's a good point, because, Paul, you've
been arguing that the president should be more ruthless, that he
should be...

KRUGMAN: Well, yes, I mean, I think the summit actually served
its purpose, from his point of view, which was to demonstrate that the
Republicans are not going to give on anything, that they're not going
to -- you know, they're going to make every possible claim, they're
going to say things that aren't true, like premiums are going to go up
under this bill, which isn't -- isn't going to happen.

And, yes, I mean, I prefer -- I mean, and George and I actually
have the same view, but I think the better metaphor is it's a three-
legged stool. You have to have guaranteed issue. You can get -- you
know, pre-existing conditions are covered. To make that work, you
have to have universality. You have to have a mandate.

And to have that work, you have to have large subsidies. So the
bill has to be more or less what it is. It has to be a comprehensive
reform. And the Democrats, you know, from their own point of view,
they actually have to do this. They have to -- they can't go into
November elections...

VARGAS: And that's the big question, Cokie.

ROBERTS: That's the big question. That is the big question.
There's no certainty at this point that there are 217 votes in the
House and 51 in the Senate, no matter what procedure they use. So
that is still where they are hung up, which is where they've been hung
up all along.

Now, the White House did a couple of smart things in terms of
what people were upset about. You heard Senator Alexander talk about,
in the dead of night, 2,700 pages, Christmas Eve. Those are the
talking points. And -- and so the White House puts it up on the Web,
has a, you know, seven-hour meeting, and takes out the special
provisions, particularly for Nebraska.

And so that -- they're trying to fix the things that they see are
-- that the public has had problems with. And it is true that you can
-- you can sing it round or flat, George, about whether the public's
for this bill or not.

In a recent poll that we came out with, 58 percent -- a Kaiser
poll -- 58 percent said they would be angry or disappointed if a bill
didn't pass. So I think that that is what the Democrats are going
with.

VARGAS: They want something. They're just...

ROBERTS: They want something, and the Democrats just have to,
you know, say their prayers, and vote for a bill, and hope it works
for them.

DONALDSON: But, Cokie, it's true. I think in the short run
they're going to lose seats, because they dropped the ball...
(CROSSTALK)

ROBERTS: They're going to lose seats anyway.

DONALDSON: They dropped the ball last summer. The Republicans
brilliantly picked it up. It probably won't be reversed by November.
But this is the only chance in how many years to do this?

ROBERTS: Right.

DONALDSON: And I think history will show that they were right if
they get it done.

VARGAS: George?

WILL: Two things. First of all, Sam, you want the president to
be Ulysses Grant, who won the war by his wonderful indifference to his
own casualties, and I think some members in the Senate and in the
House would not approve of that.

DONALDSON: Did I not just say that they may lose some seats?
Were you listening?

WILL: By the millions. Now -- second, now, Paul says that, in
fact, the Republicans have no ideas. They do, cross-selling across
state lines, tort reforms, all those. Just a second, Paul.

Then you say they're telling whoppers. That was your view about
Lamar Alexander when he said, for millions of Americans, premiums will
go up. You said in the next sentence in your column, I guess you
could say he wasn't technically lying, because the Congressional
Budget Office says that's true.

KRUGMAN: No, it's not what it says.

(CROSSTALK)

KRUGMAN: Can I explain? This is...

(CROSSTALK)

WILL: Wait. Let me -- let me set the predicate here, because
you then go on and say the Senate does say the average premiums would
go up, but people would be getting better premiums.

KRUGMAN: Look, let me explain what happens, because you actually
have to read the CBO report. And what the CBO report tells you -- in
fairly elliptical language -- is that what it will do, what the bill
will do is bring a lot of people who are uninsured, who are currently
young and therefore relatively low cost, into the risk pool, which
will actually bring premiums down a little bit.

It will also have, however, let -- lead a lot of people to get
better insurance. It will lead a lot of people who are currently
underinsured, who have insurance policies that are paper thin and
don't actually protect you in a crisis, will actually get those people
up to having full coverage. That makes the average payments go up,
but it does not mean that people who currently have good coverage
under their policies will pay more for their -- for their insurance.
In fact, they'll end up paying a little bit less.

WILL: One question. If the government came to you and said,
"Professor Krugman, you have a car. We're going to compel you to buy
a more expensive car," but it's not really more expensive, because
it's a better car, wouldn't you tell them to get off your land?

KRUGMAN: It's not -- Catherine Rampell did a very good piece in
the Times blogs recently which said that the main obstacle to the
people who are uninsured is not that they are choosing not to be
insured. It is income.

It is, in fact, young people who are not buying insurance because
they're not being able to afford it, will be brought in through the
subsidies. And that will end up being better even for the people who
are currently insured.

ROBERTS: One of the things that the -- the Congress has failed
to do until now is convince people who have insurance, which is most
of us, that this bill will work for them, and that's why this argument
is important.

But the -- the one thing that has been added on, apparently,
since we haven't actually seen the bill in the last week, is the
decision to have the federal government regulate rates, and that could
be extremely popular with people...

(CROSSTALK)

DONALDSON: ... old guys, they say to us, "We're going to cut
your Medicare." They're not going to cut Medicare benefits, not touch
them. What they want to cut in the bill, as I understand it, is
Medicare Advantage, which was put in with a government subsidy of 15
cents for every dollar, take the 15 cents away. The private insurers
now can compete on their own and use that money elsewhere, and you
could argue where it should be used, but it's not correct that they're
trying to cut Medicare.

VARGAS: I do want to get to one other issue related to this
health care bill, which is the language on abortion, because it almost
died in the House, the health care bill, because of abortion. There
was the Stupak amendment, which attached highly restrictive language
to when abortions could be covered, and there -- Bart Stupak says this
is unacceptable, this current bill, as Obama has proposed it, and he
says 20 other members of the House will have problems with it, too.

Will abortion kill this thing in the end?

WILL: Well, Alan Frumin's 15 minutes of fame have arrived. He
is the hitherto obscure, but soon to be quite famous parliamentarian
of the Senate, and it will be his job to rule on what can and cannot
be passed under reconciliation. That is, is it a budgetary-related
thing?
You can argue about a great many things in the health care bill.
Can you say that's budget-related? No one thinks you can change the
abortion language under reconciliation.

KRUGMAN: Let me just point out...

VARGAS: And, Cokie...

KRUGMAN: ... that in 2001, the Senate parliamentarian was in
doubts about the -- some of the things Republicans were doing through
reconciliation, and they dealt with that by firing him and replacing
him.

VARGAS: And, Cokie, can Speaker Pelosi, given this issue, if
they can't get through on reconciliation some sort of changing of the
abortion language...

(CROSSTALK)

VARGAS: ... can she find the votes?

ROBERTS: It's going to be very, very tough. That's what I said
at the beginning. I mean, this -- this bill is not at the moment
passable by Democratic votes.

DONALDSON: She'll get the votes.

ROBERTS: I think in the end she will, too.

DONALDSON: In the end, the Democrats understand the old phrase,
"We hang together or we hang separately."

ROBERTS: At the moment...

VARGAS: Well, and they're on record already taking an unpopular
vote.

ROBERTS: ... the calculation...

VARGAS: It's going to kill them in November.

ROBERTS: The calculation that they've made all along -- and I
personally think it's a correct calculation -- is that it's worse to
do nothing than to do something and that, in the long run, people will
like this bill.

WILL: Can I say something that Paul and I might actually agree
on?

VARGAS: Sure.

WILL: Twenty years from now, the country is going to be spending
a larger portion of its GDP on health care than it is now for three
reasons. We're getting older, and as we age, we get more chronic
diseases that interact with one another. Second, we're getting
richer; we can afford to buy more medicine. And, third, medicine is
becoming more competent. Therefore, we're going to spend more on
health care.

KRUGMAN: But there's a...

ROBERTS: The other thing is, you know, the health care industry
is the biggest employer in most of our cities now. So when -- when
the speaker talks about a job creation bill...

VARGAS: A jobs bill, exactly.

ROBERTS: ... it's true.

VARGAS: Let's shift a little bit to Charlie Rangel, because we
heard Speaker Pelosi talk about the fact that what he did didn't
endanger national security, but it doesn't look good. We've got a
handful of Democrats who have now started to join Republicans and
calling for him to step down as chairman of the House Ways and Means
Committee, a powerful post in the House of Representatives. Can he
hold this post, Cokie?

ROBERTS: Yes, he can hold it, as long as people -- you know, his
colleagues say he can hold it. But whether it becomes too hot for him
to hold is something that, you know, sort of evolves. And you see
what happens in the papers in New York and all of that and whether he
can withstand it.

But, you know, in terms of that Ethics Committee report, there
were two sets of issues they were dealing with. One was this trip to
the Caribbean that was apparently paid for by corporations. The other
was donations to members of Congress who then provided things in
legislation for the people who gave those donations. I think that's a
far, far more serious offense...

VARGAS: Very serious.

ROBERTS: ... and -- and the Ethics Committee basically said, "No
problem." That's the kind of thing that really makes people very
uncomfortable about the Congress and feel like the Congress is all on
the take.

DONALDSON: Now, let's talk about -- talk about the man for a
moment. Years ago, he wrote his autobiography, titled, "I Haven't Had
a Bad Day Since," referring to the day in Korea when Sergeant Rangel,
pressed by the enemy, led his men over a steep, frigid mountain pass
to safety and got the bronze star for it. I didn't know him then.

But when he came to Congress, having unseated Adam Clayton Powell
in Harlem, he came as a reformer. He was on the Impeachment Committee
and the Judiciary Committee for Richard Nixon, the real impeachment
process. And through the years, we've watched him.

Now, if these charges before the Ethics Committee -- and I agree
with you, they're much more serious than the one for which he's been
admonished...

VARGAS: And there are further ones...

(CROSSTALK)

DONALDSON: If, in fact...

VARGAS: ... apartments in Harlem and...

DONALDSON: ... that's -- it's all true, he has to give it up.
He has to have it be taken away from him. And I think his being in
the House has been good for his constituents and good for the country.

VARGAS: George?

WILL: To know Charlie Rangel is to like him.

ROBERTS: Exactly.

WILL: He's a wonderful spirit and all that. Still, one has to
wonder. Suppose a Republican has revised his disclosure form and
suddenly his net worth doubled and he came upon not one, but two
checking accounts with $500,000 in them...

DONALDSON: They're serious.

WILL: I mean, this is -- there comes a point at which the tax
writing committee should be headed by someone without these...

(CROSSTALK)

VARGAS: Well, and Speaker Pelosi and Steny Hoyer were all
calling for Tom DeLay to relinquish his post when he was also
admonished by the Ethics Committee.

KRUGMAN: Yes, this is -- you know, it's -- it is worth pointing
out that none of these things actually seem to affect national policy.
You know, when Billy Tauzin...

(CROSSTALK)

KRUGMAN: When Bill Tauzin basically wrote the drug -- the
Medicare drug bill then left Congress to become head of the
pharmaceutical lobby, that was much more serious, but it didn't
actually violate House ethics rules.

So, yes, I'm unable with this. I wish Rangel would go away. But
it's -- you know, it really has no national significance.

VARGAS: And now let's go to the New York governor, because the
state of New York has quite a brouhaha playing out this weekend, the
end of last weekend, this weekend. Governor David Paterson stepping
down amid allegations that he and his state police contingent
improperly tried to influence a woman involved in a domestic violence
dispute with one of his closest aides.

ROBERTS: And to keep her from testifying against a man who had
abused her. It's really...

VARGAS: And domestic violence was his signature issue coming
into office.

ROBERTS: It's just unbelievable. The idea that he would use the
state police and himself -- he called her himself to basically say --
or is alleged to have -- to say, "Don't show up in court to testify
against my friend, who beat you up." You know, that is -- that is the
worst kind of harassment of women who are already very reluctant to go
the court on domestic violence issues.

VARGAS: He has said he will not run for election in November...

ROBERTS: Yes, because he couldn't win.

VARGAS: But this weekend, Democrats in New York are meeting
because they're not sure he can govern for 10 more months.

DONALDSON: Well, that's a real question. You know, Basil
Paterson, one of the great power brokers in New York...

ROBERTS: His father.

DONALDSON: ... Democratic politics, his father, is a man of
great substance. His son has proved not to be. And I think one of
the lessons here is, when you run -- because they run as a team in New
York, governor and lieutenant governor -- you ought -- just like a
president and vice president -- you don't put someone on the ticket
because there's a political advantage who is not capable of stepping
in, as he has proved not to be capable. And I think it's a real
question whether he should serve out the rest of his term.

VARGAS: And, George, what a bumpy term for him. He's got
terrible approval ratings, a huge budget problem, and he managed to
infuriate the Kennedys by his mishandling of Caroline Kennedy's -- you
know, when she -- when she tried to take over for Hillary Clinton's
Senate seat.

WILL: You mentioned the budget problem. I mean, New York state
spending has increased almost 70 percent in a decade. It is dead heat
with California as to see which is the worst governed state right now.
So a lot of New York's problems predate and will follow Mr. Paterson.
Whether or not he should resign because he can't govern, who can
govern that state? The state legislature governs that state badly.

ROBERTS: And locks people out and does all kinds of...

(CROSSTALK)

KRUGMAN: From my -- from my home state of New Jersey, I think
we're in the running there.

WILL: You are.

ROBERTS: Exactly.

DONALDSON: We're going to see whether Andrew Cuomo can govern.
He's going to be the Democratic nominee.
VARGAS: Well, he's -- he's the attorney general, who is
currently investigating Governor Paterson, and has expressed
interest...

(CROSSTALK)

ROBERTS: Currently investigating the governor...

(CROSSTALK)

VARGAS: ... the White House had tried privately to encourage
Governor Paterson to step...

(CROSSTALK)

ROBERTS: Privately? It wasn't so private.

VARGAS: ... wasn't so private, to step aside, so I guess they're
probably looking at this as a positive development, that he's not
running for election.

ROBERTS: Oh, sure.

DONALDSON: Oh, yes.

(CROSSTALK)

ROBERTS: Oh, sure. Yes, but, you know, this business of using
the state troopers, which, of course, Eliot Spitzer was also -- I
mean, it was all of these -- all these echoes of, you know, the wife
standing by as the governor admits to, you know, some perfidy.

And the state troopers, really, if I were the state troopers, I
would find a way to just not do what the governor says, because it
just gets them in trouble over and over again...

VARGAS: Yes, exactly.

ROBERTS: ... and then there was Arkansas.

VARGAS: And then, of course, this weekend, we have a brand-new
White House social secretary appointed to replace Desiree Rogers, a
close friend of the Obamas who is exiting after a bumpy tenure, I
would say. Cokie, you spoke with her. She -- she was highly
criticized after the Obamas' first state dinner in which she arrived,
looking absolutely gorgeous, but in what some people later said was
far too fancy a dress, but most importantly, that was the state dinner
that was crashed by the Salahis, who walked in without an invitation
when the social secretary's office didn't have people manning the
security sites.

ROBERTS: Well, I talked to -- I did talk to her, Desiree,
yesterday at length. She is from my home city of New Orleans and
fellow Sacred Heart girl.

DONALDSON: What's the name of the city?
ROBERTS: New Orleans.

DONALDSON: I love to hear her say it.

(CROSSTALK)

ROBERTS: But -- and she has lots of good explanations about that
dinner. And basically, the bottom line is, it's the Secret Service.
But she -- but her -- her major point is -- and I -- and I completely
take this -- is that she -- she put on 330 events at the White House
last year and did open the building to all kinds of people who had not
been there before. And they had wonderful music days of all kinds of
music, where you had during the day, the musicians would work with
kids in Washington and teach them things before coming on at night.

DONALDSON: Cokie, that's irrelevant.

ROBERTS: Well, I don't think it's irrelevant.

DONALDSON: I mean, it's irrelevant. People who work for the
president understand or should understand their place, which is to be
spear-carriers. There are two stars in anyone's White House, the
president and the president's spouse. After that, this passion for
anonymity that once was a hallmark of people who worked for a
president, has been lost. She wanted to be a star herself...

ROBERTS: And it's been lost. Look at all the people who work
for presidents and then go out and write books about them.

DONALDSON: I think you're right.

VARGAS: Do you think she was -- did she quit, or was she asked
to leave?

DONALDSON: She was asked to.

ROBERTS: She says she quit.

DONALDSON: Oh, well...

(CROSSTALK)

ROBERTS: And she certainly has lots...

DONALDSON: And to spend more time with your family.

ROBERTS: No, no, to go into the corporate sector and make some
money, where she'll make a lot of -- she'll do fine.

DONALDSON: Good luck to her. I don't wish her ill.

(CROSSTALK)

DONALDSON: It's just that she didn't understand...

ROBERTS: She'll do very well.
DONALDSON: ... she was not a star in the sense that she should
make herself prominent.

VARGAS: George?

WILL: It is axiomatic that when there's no penalty for failure,
failure proliferates. She failed conspicuously in her one great
challenge, which was the first state dinner, and she's gone. If she's
gone because she failed, that's a healthy sign.

VARGAS: The big question, of course, because she was one of that
close contingent of Chicago friends is whether or not she's just the
first to leave or if we'll see other...

ROBERTS: But you'll see people leave.

(CROSSTALK)

ROBERTS: I mean, that's what happens. It's a perfectly normal
thing that happens in administration, is that people come, and they
come in at the beginning, and then it's time to -- to go back to life.

KRUGMAN: Can I say that 20 million Americans unemployed, the
fact that we're worrying about the status of the White House social
secretary...

VARGAS: It's our light way to end, Paul.

DONALDSON: Paul, welcome to Washington.

VARGAS: Thank you.

DONALDSON: Nice to see you.

VARGAS: All right. You can get the political updates all week
long by signing up for our newsletter on abcnews.com. Thank you,
everybody.